National Housing Law Project Housing Law Bulletin

In Syracuse Housing Authority v. Boule, 658 N.Y.S.2d 776, 172 Misc.2d 254 (N.Y. City Ct. 1996), the City Court of Syracuse refused to evict, under HUD's "one-strike rule," a housing authority resident whose emergency babysitter, whom she had asked to sit for her children so she could go to work when her regular sitter became unavailable, was arrested for possessing and selling illicit drugs out of her apartment while she was at work and without her knowledge. The City Court found that the resident did not know of the drug-related activity, did not consent to it, and under the circumstances, had no basis upon which to foresee it. The court further found that neither the "one-strike" statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1437d(l)(5), nor HUD's "One Strike and You're Out" policy statement intended to authorize eviction of public housing residents for drug-related activity regardless of the resident's fault.

The Syracuse Housing Authority (SHA) appealed the decision to the County Court, arguing that under the one-strike legislation and HUD's policy, a tenant may be evicted from public housing under a strict liability standard based on conduct that the tenant can not reasonably foresee, prevent or control. To support its argument that a tenant may be evicted without a finding of fault, SHA relied heavily on two cases, South San Francisco Housing Authority v. Guillory, 49 Cal. Rptr.2d 367 (Cal. Super. Ct., App. Dept., 1995), and Minneapolis Public Housing Authority v. Holloway, 1995 Minn. App. LEXIS 1028 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), both of which the City Court had failed to distinguish.

Noting that, in its opinion, the City Court's decision was fair and just under the circumstances, the County Court rejected SHA's argument that a resident may be evicted without fault. Reviewing both Guillory and Holloway, the court found that neither case stood for the proposition that SHA was advancing. In Guillory, the court found that lease violation was committed by the resident's son who had knowledge of the lease clause prohibiting drug activities on or near the premises. Thus, there was personal fault on the part of a member of the household who had an opportunity to assure that his conduct comported with the lease provisions. In this case, the court found that the tenant, who under emergency circumstances invited a guest to take care of her children, did not have the opportunity to assure that there would be no drug activity on the premises.

The County Court distinguished Holloway, because it involved a course of activity that occurred over a period of time. In that case, the tenant was evicted after she had left the unit in the care of a 25-year-old while she was out of town for three or four weeks. During that time, there were numerous serious incidents, such as a drive-by shooting and a fire bombing. The County Court acknowledged that the Holloway court had stated that an eviction may be had without a finding of fault, and that it had, in fact, found that the eviction would have been warranted using a fault standard. Thus, the court it doubted whether the Holloway court would have evicted the resident after a single incident.

In affirming the City Court decision, the County Court rejected SHA's position as simply going too far.

Under the standard urged by [SHA], a tenant who called an appliance repairman to the premises could be evicted from the premises if the repairman were found to be in possession of a single marijuana cigarette, even if the tenant had run a criminal background check on him and found no indication of any drug-related problems. Apparently the petitioner herein would also require a strip search before the repairman was allowed on the premises.

Slip op. at 3.